Blown to Kingdom Come

Given the fact that Manhattan is not glowing in the dark without help, I would say that a micronuke is not an option. Not to mention the fact that there were survivors in the immidiate surroundings of the building, no firestorms through the streets, no spikes and continued above-normal levels in the radiation of the area and, let's not forget, none of the unique seismic readings normally connected with a nuke.

Oh, and noone whom died of radioation poisoning within the last five years of living in Manhattan including the year 2001.

That's just a bunch of BS, BS.....
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Observe[qimg]http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/Image110.jpg[/qimg][qimg]http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/Image112.jpg[/qimg]
Notice how so much of the skeleton is still clearly visible. It has merely been sliced into pieces and allowed to collpase. Not disintegrated.

So here is the hierarchy. Gravity collapse (least disintegration) > standard controlled demolition (some disintegration) > twin towers (near total disintegration)
Click to expand...

Wrong, the only thing which connects a CD and the Twin Towers tragedy is the fact that both resulted in the buildings coming down.
 
defaultdotxbe said:
and i wouldnt expect you to find any undamaged floors, it would be quite suspicious if an acre of concrete can fall 1300 feet and not break
Click to expand...

The concrete did not "break" when it "hit the ground". It turned into powder in mid air. Big difference. You are simply parroting a false story with no evidence.

Where is your evidence that concrete broke when it hit the ground? Where are the large broken pieces?
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
The concrete did not "break" when it "hit the ground". It turned into powder in mid air. Big difference. You are simply parroting a false story with no evidence.

Where is your evidence that concrete broke when it hit the ground? Where are the large broken pieces?
Click to expand...

Evidence? So far all the videos I've seen, supports the floors shattering on impact wether with other floors or the ground.
 
Last edited:
The_Fire said:
Given the fact that Manhattan is not glowing in the dark without help, I would say that a micronuke is not an option. Not to mention the fact that there were survivors in the immidiate surroundings of the building, no firestorms through the streets, no spikes and continued above-normal levels in the radiation of the area and, let's not forget, none of the unique seismic readings normally connected with a nuke.

Oh, and noone whom died of radioation poisoning within the last five years of living in Manhattan including the year 2001.

That's just a bunch of BS, BS.....
Click to expand...

I agree. I think the evidence is against micronukes. The amount of disintegration suggests such a force, but the radiation is low, and the seismic readings are too low.

So, what can generate the amount of energy needed, and direct the energy as required, and pulverize the building from the top down as we observe?
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
You are simply parroting a false story with no evidence.
Click to expand...
WAIT! You're going too fast! I can't fit that into my signature. We're limited to 500 characters, including html code. I know I said you're doing good work, but can you not do it so often, or condense it if possible? Two-word slogans would be best. Thanks.

Your Pal,
Gravy
 
Last edited:
Gravy said:
Thank you for my new signature. It's my favorite yet. Keep up the good work!
Click to expand...


I have seen no evidence that the buildings "fell down". As in "collapsed". Of course the building collapsed and fell down after it was sytematically blown to kingdom come.

I'm honored to have made your signature box Gravy. Still afraid to debate me on video?
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
I agree. I think the evidence is against micronukes. The amount of disintegration suggests such a force, but the radiation is low, and the seismic readings are too low.

So, what can generate the amount of energy needed, and direct the energy as required, and pulverize the building from the top down as we observe?
Click to expand...

An extremely heavy building collapsing.

I honestly think that you expect there to be no dust, and that the weight of the towers wasn't enough to make anything turn into dust. And last time I checked, controlled demos don't turn steel into dust.

If this explosion was great enough to disintegrate all the concrete (which we all know is a lie because all you can do is "guess") then where are these incredible explosions? Where do we see them during the collapse?
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
I agree. I think the evidence is against micronukes. The amount of disintegration suggests such a force, but the radiation is low, and the seismic readings are too low.

So, what can generate the amount of energy needed, and direct the energy as required, and pulverize the building from the top down as we observe?
Click to expand...

1: The buiding were hit by an aircraft with fully loaded fueltanks at max velocity, causing sever structural damage.
2: The following massive fires made the structural damage worse by weaking the remaing support structures by the way of heat.
3: Caused by this weaking, the support structure suporting the largely undamaged part of the building above the point of impact, failed causing the mentioned upper part of the building to ram into the lower part of the building.
4: Due to the fact that the building were not designed for that sort of event, the impact of the upper part of the building caused a global, progressive collapse, which during and after the collapse and the subsequent collision with a little something called Mother Earth, shattered the decks aka as floors of the building, all made from reinforced concrete.
5: A dust cloud, consisting mainly of large amounts of drywall and a certain amount of concrete, allthough not the amount BS1234 claims, formed and were forced into the well known mushroom cloud, which doesn't only occur on nuclear explosions but also on other explosions, due to AIRPRESSURE!.
6: The airpressure, which in normal explosions comes from the shockwave of the explosion itself, were caused by the massive collapse of the buildings which came down very fast, allthough NOT at freefall speed.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
I have seen no evidence that the buildings "fell down". As in "collapsed". Of course the building collapsed and fell down after it was sytematically blown to kingdom come.
Click to expand...
WAIT! I definitely can't fit all that into my signature!

How did the building both fall down and get blown to "kindom come?" Does "kingdom come" mean "down?" I've never heard that before. Why not just say "down?"
 
Gravy said:
WAIT! I definitely can't fit all that into my signature!

How did the building both fall down and get blown to "kindom come?" Does "kingdom come" mean "down?" I've never heard that before. Why not just say "down?"
Click to expand...

Create a webpage somewhere and link to it in your sig. It's something I've contemplated doing for QUIET a while now...
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
I think the evidence is against micronukes.
Click to expand...
WILL YOU SLOW DOWN! I CANNOT FIT ALL THIS INTO MY SIGNATURE! HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO TELL YOU? TAKE A BREAK, WILL YOU?

What do you think about Mothra's involvement?
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
The concrete did not "break" when it "hit the ground". It turned into powder in mid air. Big difference. You are simply parroting a false story with no evidence.

Where is your evidence that concrete broke when it hit the ground? Where are the large broken pieces?
Click to expand...
ok, lets say if the concrete had not "disintegrated in mid air" do you think it would have broken when it hit the ground?

if so, why would you be looking for fully intact floor slabs? do you think that lacking explosives to aid in a building collapse the floors would not have hit the ground?
 
ihaunter said:
You want to see the floors COMPLETELY INTACT?!? :jaw-dropp What in the world makes you think that is even possible? Do you have even a rudimentary understanding of the laws of physics? This post would be longer, but I'm rather speechless at the moment.
Click to expand...

Not completely intact, but still macroscopic. Physics suggestes that objects do not pulverize themselves. Even if you accept the notion that the force due to the acceleration of gravity is enough for the upper section to pulverize the lower section (ridiculous, but let's go with it), what pulverizes the upper section before it hits the ground?

Do you have a rudimentary understanding of physics? The gravitational potential energy supposedly employed to explain all the work was mostly spent just accelerating the mass toward the ground, as the "collapse" was so rapid. Thus, only a small percentage of the PE was available to do any other work. From this small percentage of PE, you have to explain the complete pulverization of all the non-metallic contents of the structure into fine powder, you have to explain the shredding of the entire steel superstructure into pieces, the expansion of the dust cloud, and a lot of other phenomena.

Thus a gravity -only theory would seem to violate conservation of energy.

Guys, look at the pictures. Those buildings disppeared. You got some explaining to do. Please pick up where NIST left off.
 
Where on earth does truthseeker get the idea that there should be so much concrete?

The floors were 4 inches (100mm thick) cast concrete (non structural) on a corrugated steel (thin steel) deck supported on the floor trusses.

The floor concrete was one of the weakest elements of the building. All it was there for was to provide a flat and level surface for the offices etc. Without the steel decking and/or the floor trusses that concrete was only going in one direction.

DOWN.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Not completely intact, but still macroscopic. Physics suggestes that objects do not pulverize themselves. Even if you accept the notion that the force due to the acceleration of gravity is enough for the upper section to pulverize the lower section (ridiculous, but let's go with it), what pulverizes the upper section before it hits the ground?

Do you have a rudimentary understanding of physics? The gravitational potential energy supposedly employed to explain all the work was mostly spent just accelerating the mass toward the ground, as the "collapse" was so rapid. Thus, only a small percentage of the PE was available to do any other work. From this small percentage of PE, you have to explain the complete pulverization of all the non-metallic contents of the structure into fine powder, you have to explain the shredding of the entire steel superstructure into pieces, the expansion of the dust cloud, and a lot of other phenomena.

Thus a gravity -only theory would seem to violate conservation of energy.

Guys, look at the pictures. Those buildings disppeared. You got some explaining to do. Please pick up where NIST left off.
Click to expand...

The upper floors weren't pulversized before they hit the ground. I see the upper floors falling on the lower floors, crushing what was under it and causing smoke and dust.

And if the building dissapeared wouldn't there be no evidence of a building being there? Look back at your "crater".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom